The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since misunderstanding of facts on March 31, 2012, the defendant requested a certified judicial scrivener to report the transfer of seized objects before or after the director was appointed, and it is thought that the report was accepted by the certified judicial scrivener and reported the transfer, there is no intention to conceal the defendant.

The punishment (one million won of fine) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, the lower court’s determination is justifiable since it can sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant’s act of impairing the effectiveness of the indication of seizure by concealing the seized movables with the director without reporting the transfer of seized objects. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

F The court below stated that on March 29, 2012, on the day of seizure, the defendant should not open the seized objects to the execution officer office without permission. The defendant requested the director to report the transfer of seized objects. However, the defendant stated that the defendant living in Daejeon in Seoul would be able to report the transfer of seized objects directly to the execution officer. The defendant also stated that the police should not move the seized objects without permission, and that the defendant should report the transfer of seized objects to the execution officer office.

The defendant's assertion that it was difficult to remove the seized article solely on the ground that the application for an injunction was filed in a situation where the personal rehabilitation of the defendant was not determined.

The defendant was aware that he should not move the seized objects without permission, and even if F stated that he would directly call that he would report the transfer of seized objects to the defendant, the defendant would be able to know about F without permission, and it is impossible to auction corporeal movables after the director.